I've been with the same company for 24 years. I used to have fantastic insurance until Obamacare. Now my premiums have doubled and my insurance sucks. The other day my mother was complaining about all the problems with Obamacare. You voted for him I didn't mother. I was very nice about it but kept saying I told you so as nicely as I could. The basic fact that everything that comes out of that mans mouth is a big fat lie I have no sympathy for anyone that voted for him and is hurt by this.

(10-11-2013 05:39 AM)smidgen Wrote: I've been with the same company for 24 years. I used to have fantastic insurance until Obamacare. Now my premiums have doubled and my insurance sucks. The other day my mother was complaining about all the problems with Obamacare. You voted for him I didn't mother. I was very nice about it but kept saying I told you so as nicely as I could. The basic fact that everything that comes out of that mans mouth is a big fat lie I have no sympathy for anyone that voted for him and is hurt by this.

What was your old insurance, and what is your new insurance.
Can you gice a summary of each of the insurance policies for us to compare?

(10-11-2013 06:10 AM)black_squirrel Wrote: What was your old insurance, and what is your new insurance.
Can you gice a summary of each of the insurance policies for us to compare?

I'll tell you mine. It used to be $54/month for $2 million in coverage, with a $12,500 deductible. Therefore, it only covered emergencies or large items.

Now, the lowest price plan is $250/month and it covers the same thing with the same $2 million limit, and it has a $6,500 deductible. But it pays for an annual checkup, less a copay.

It's obviously stupid to pay an extra $2,000/year to reduce the deductible by $6,000 to $6,500, unless your medical bills are over $6,500/year anyway. For 20 years I've never once spent $6,500/year, so whether I had this new coverage or my old coverage, either way the insurance company would have never covered a thing, and I would have paid $104,185 (=FV(0.07/12,20*12,200) to reduce the risk of paying $6,000. So the reduced deductible is stupid.

As far as the annual checkup, the co-pay on it alone is MORE than what I already pay for the whole checkup, so that's also a zero benefit that I will never use. Basically, with Obamacare I get nothing more, pay 5x as much, and make a $200/month donation to some insurance company.

(10-11-2013 06:10 AM)black_squirrel Wrote: What was your old insurance, and what is your new insurance.
Can you gice a summary of each of the insurance policies for us to compare?

I'll tell you mine. It used to be $54/month for $2 million in coverage, with a $12,500 deductible. Therefore, it only covered emergencies or large items.

Now, the lowest price plan is $250/month and it covers the same thing with the same $2 million limit, and it has a $6,500 deductible. But it pays for an annual checkup, less a copay.

It's obviously stupid to pay an extra $2,000/year to reduce the deductible by $6,000 to $6,500, unless your medical bills are over $6,500/year anyway. For 20 years I've never once spent $6,500/year, so whether I had this new coverage or my old coverage, either way the insurance company would have never covered a thing, and I would have paid $104,185 (=FV(0.07/12,20*12,200) to reduce the risk of paying $6,000. So the reduced deductible is stupid.

As far as the annual checkup, the co-pay on it alone is MORE than what I already pay for the whole checkup, so that's also a zero benefit that I will never use. Basically, with Obamacare I get nothing more, pay 5x as much, and make a $200/month donation to some insurance company.

Generally you get what you pay for, in my experience. When I just got to this country I only could get lousy but cheap insurance.
When I needed surgery the insurance company just said it was a preexisting condition (even though it was not) and they
paid nothing. It was a minor surgery, so it was not worth sueing them.

(26-11-2013 12:34 AM)derp_wolf Wrote: I'm not American, but aren't most of the problem with this Obamacare thing caused by Republicans messing with it?

Nope. Here's an analogy I give. Say all the Democrats wanted houses painted blue, and the Republicans want them red. If they would pass the laws at the local level, places that are predominantly Democratic would have their blue laws and vice-versa. But, instead, both sides insist we need a universal law that applies to everyone, so that nobody can escape the wisdom of their color choice. So the two sides fight to the death and eventually agree to require all houses be purple. Now nobody is happy with the color of their house.

Same with Obamacare. Democrats favored a single-payer system. Republicans did not. In this case, it was the Democrats who screwed it up by insisting we needed one nation-wide system, and so while the two were fighting, the sole compromise solution that all Congressmen from both parties could agree on was to take millions in donations from the insurance company lobby, and let the insurance companies write the new laws. And now we have Obamacare--a system so bad that a majority on both parties agree it's terrible.

If Democrats had focused on doing this at the State level, then they probably could have gotten a single-payer system like Canada's in liberal states, like Massachusetts, without having to make compromises for the right-wingers in Alabama. And if it worked well, Massachusetts would have been a model that other states could have copied and improved upon. But, their actions showed the Democrats don't really care getting a better health care system, they just care about "winning the fight" and forcing Republicans thousands of miles away to do something against their will.

They're two warring clans of neanderthals fighting to control the other, and neither side is willing to lay down their clubs and peacefully coexist.

Quote:Why is this concept so complicated for the self-proclaimed liberals to understand?

Because we are not dicks like insurance company executives who would be perfectly happy to let sick people die if it means a bigger bottom line for the company?

Just a guess.

But the people who cannot afford insurance are not people worth while saving. They're usually stupid ghetto dwelling Christians - why prolong the burden on society???

The world is over populated with stupid people - what do you want to do with them all???

I get a government subsidized $1300/month apartment in New York City in a nice quiet neighborhood, $200.00 in food stamps, and $180.00 cash allowance I spend on drugs and alcohol, along with free medical; and I do not have to work. I spend my days in my underwear on Facebook living vicariously, and I never pay Internet forum dues - thanks dude.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define realityTheism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines realityAtheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefully

(03-11-2013 09:13 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Because we are not dicks like insurance company executives who would be perfectly happy to let sick people die if it means a bigger bottom line for the company?

Just a guess.

But the people who cannot afford insurance are not people worth while saving. They're usually stupid ghetto dwelling Christians - why prolong the burden on society???

The world is over populated with stupid people - what do you want to do with them all???

I get a government subsidized $1300/month apartment in New York City in a nice quiet neighborhood, $200.00 in food stamps, and $180.00 cash allowance I spend on drugs and alcohol, along with free medical; and I do not have to work. I spend my days in my underwear on Facebook living vicariously, and I never pay Internet forum dues - thanks dude.

TrainWreck is Girly's fucking hero. We should so fucking body swap. Can you code? 'Cause I don't want you losing my job and shit for incompetence.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

(03-11-2013 08:06 PM)frankksj Wrote: When companies like Blue Cross cover planned, predictable expenses like routine checkups, it is NOT insurance! There is no risk, and the management of risk IS the very definition of insurance.

Sorry, but that’s nonsense. It is precisely because insurance is risk management that such things are covered. I work for an insurance company and we have a cancer policy that actually pays women to get pap smears, that’s over and above the cost of the checkup up itself. Why? Because we know that annual pap smears are an effective way to manage the risk of cancer.

(03-11-2013 08:06 PM)frankksj Wrote: When companies like Blue Cross cover planned, predictable expenses like routine checkups, it is NOT insurance! There is no risk, and the management of risk IS the very definition of insurance.

Sorry, but that’s nonsense. It is precisely because insurance is risk management that such things are covered. I work for an insurance company and we have a cancer policy that actually pays women to get pap smears, that’s over and above the cost of the checkup up itself. Why? Because we know that annual pap smears are an effective way to manage the risk of cancer.

You haven't thought this through. It is reasonable and logical for an insurance company to give women a discount for getting pap smears, or a penalty for not getting them, since it mitigates risk. BUT, what is illogical to have a law that says EVERY insurance company must give EVERY woman a pap smear and must pay for it and mark the cost up 25%. Once you do that, you've introduced a perverse incentive for the insurance company to drive up the cost of pap smears. Seriously, this isn't brain surgery.

Think about car insurance. The insurance company may give you a discount for taking an advanced driving course. Fine, good idea. But what if the government said every driver MUST take an advanced driving course, every driver MUST get an insurance policy that covers it, and every insurance MUST pay for the driving course with a 25% markup, and the insurance companies get to pick the driving courses and influence driving course regulation. If you do that, you've introduced a perverse incentive for the insurance companies to get regulation passed that drives the cost of advanced driving courses through the roof. It's just plain stupid. I don't get why so many Americans cannot comprehend this. Maybe there's something to the conspiracy theory that the government is putting fluoride in the water to make everybody stupid. Seriously, no other country does this. You can't find one other country that would even consider introducing this kind of perverse incentive, and yet Americans for some reason can't see it.